Academic cancer center phase i program development

Arthur E. Frankel, Keith T. Flaherty, George J. Weiner, Robert Chen, Nilofer S. Azad, Michael J. Pishvaian, John A. Thompson, Matthew H. Taylor, Daruka Mahadevan, A. Craig Lockhart, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Jordan D. Berlin, David C. Smith, John Sarantopoulos, Matthew Riese, Mansoor N. Saleh, Chul Ahn, Eugene P. Frenkel

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)369-374
Number of pages6
JournalOncologist
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Program Development
Neoplasms
Research
Research Personnel
Clinical Trials
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Frankel, A. E., Flaherty, K. T., Weiner, G. J., Chen, R., Azad, N. S., Pishvaian, M. J., ... Frenkel, E. P. (2017). Academic cancer center phase i program development. Oncologist, 22(4), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

Academic cancer center phase i program development. / Frankel, Arthur E.; Flaherty, Keith T.; Weiner, George J.; Chen, Robert; Azad, Nilofer S.; Pishvaian, Michael J.; Thompson, John A.; Taylor, Matthew H.; Mahadevan, Daruka; Lockhart, A. Craig; Vaishampayan, Ulka N.; Berlin, Jordan D.; Smith, David C.; Sarantopoulos, John; Riese, Matthew; Saleh, Mansoor N.; Ahn, Chul; Frenkel, Eugene P.

In: Oncologist, Vol. 22, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 369-374.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Frankel, AE, Flaherty, KT, Weiner, GJ, Chen, R, Azad, NS, Pishvaian, MJ, Thompson, JA, Taylor, MH, Mahadevan, D, Lockhart, AC, Vaishampayan, UN, Berlin, JD, Smith, DC, Sarantopoulos, J, Riese, M, Saleh, MN, Ahn, C & Frenkel, EP 2017, 'Academic cancer center phase i program development', Oncologist, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
Frankel AE, Flaherty KT, Weiner GJ, Chen R, Azad NS, Pishvaian MJ et al. Academic cancer center phase i program development. Oncologist. 2017 Apr 1;22(4):369-374. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409
Frankel, Arthur E. ; Flaherty, Keith T. ; Weiner, George J. ; Chen, Robert ; Azad, Nilofer S. ; Pishvaian, Michael J. ; Thompson, John A. ; Taylor, Matthew H. ; Mahadevan, Daruka ; Lockhart, A. Craig ; Vaishampayan, Ulka N. ; Berlin, Jordan D. ; Smith, David C. ; Sarantopoulos, John ; Riese, Matthew ; Saleh, Mansoor N. ; Ahn, Chul ; Frenkel, Eugene P. / Academic cancer center phase i program development. In: Oncologist. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 369-374.
@article{246a57b8c68b45f49a747baed6c52b90,
title = "Academic cancer center phase i program development",
abstract = "Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.",
author = "Frankel, {Arthur E.} and Flaherty, {Keith T.} and Weiner, {George J.} and Robert Chen and Azad, {Nilofer S.} and Pishvaian, {Michael J.} and Thompson, {John A.} and Taylor, {Matthew H.} and Daruka Mahadevan and Lockhart, {A. Craig} and Vaishampayan, {Ulka N.} and Berlin, {Jordan D.} and Smith, {David C.} and John Sarantopoulos and Matthew Riese and Saleh, {Mansoor N.} and Chul Ahn and Frenkel, {Eugene P.}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "369--374",
journal = "Oncologist",
issn = "1083-7159",
publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic cancer center phase i program development

AU - Frankel, Arthur E.

AU - Flaherty, Keith T.

AU - Weiner, George J.

AU - Chen, Robert

AU - Azad, Nilofer S.

AU - Pishvaian, Michael J.

AU - Thompson, John A.

AU - Taylor, Matthew H.

AU - Mahadevan, Daruka

AU - Lockhart, A. Craig

AU - Vaishampayan, Ulka N.

AU - Berlin, Jordan D.

AU - Smith, David C.

AU - Sarantopoulos, John

AU - Riese, Matthew

AU - Saleh, Mansoor N.

AU - Ahn, Chul

AU - Frenkel, Eugene P.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

AB - Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017435066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0409

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 28314841

AN - SCOPUS:85017435066

VL - 22

SP - 369

EP - 374

JO - Oncologist

JF - Oncologist

SN - 1083-7159

IS - 4

ER -